Your Political Affiliation

[Netzach]

Thanks for that post JM.

With me setting my love of verbal repartee aside, I would welcome a respectful one-on-one conversation with someone who truly, belief system dogma aside, feels that my marriage, it there were one, to a man would seriously threaten their male/female marriage.

I honestly do not understand that argument.

I accept that many are yucked-out about what we might be doing in our bedroom. I know that many see gays as "less-then" people. I know society must nurture systems for population replacement and child development/training.

But how is it different if two men not-at-all into BDSM get hitched and a 60+ year-old male and female into golden-showers get hitched. There will probably be no pregnancy to help with population replacement and I expect many in our society see golden-showers as yucky (some present company excluded). If the old kinksters can wed, why not the fags? I do not understand, well I don't understand if there is no so-called "moral" judgments being made.

Shank

Shank, Shank. Don't you know that unchanging "natural" laws based on the moral high (in the sense of mores, screw "ethics") ground involving specious biological facts or lack thereof are a fine US tradition? Some of us were only recently designated humans. Fags weren't ON that list. And the only facts we need are solid ones like "it is" no matter what your personal experience, or mine, or anyone remotely on the margin might have had.

Bottom line: fuck the margin. They're a hinderance to majority rule. We hate the notion of change because it destabilizes our privilege.

 

[Shankara20]

Shank, Shank. Don't you know that unchanging "natural" laws based on the moral high (in the sense of mores, screw "ethics") ground involving specious biological facts or lack thereof are a fine US tradition? Some of us were only recently designated humans. Fags weren't ON that list. And the only facts we need are solid ones like "it is" no matter what your personal experience, or mine, or anyone remotely on the margin might have had.

Bottom line: fuck the margin. They're a hinderance to majority rule. We hate the notion of change because it destabilizes our privilege.

I ran across this quote the other day - reading your post brought it to my mind.

"The man who has had an Experience is safe against the man with a Dogma."

Don't yet know who said it, or the context of its use. But standing on its own I like it.


hmmm, I wonder what it is like to live in a world that only has two genders, both easy to define and distinguish in every instance....

link to some of my propaganda
https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=20865648&postcount=63

 

[BogartSlap]

honesty is the best policy

Now when we want a place at the table, it's another story.

Your foot-stomping pout is extremely disingenuous. You don't merely want "a place at the table" - having the same right to vote and advocate your position as any other American, you already have a place at the table. What you're really complaining about isn't being denied a place at the table, but the fact that everyone else at the table won't agree with you and vote to officially endorse your lifestyle choices.

 

[BogartSlap]

note to Shankara

I'll be back later. I'd willingly become someone's house"wife" if he would just support me in a style I'd like to become accustomed to...
bj's included
and thereby contribute to the total downfall of western civilization.

But, hey, western civilization is going to fall anyway - so I say you might as well at least try to get yourself comfortably set up.

 

[Penalt]

Shank, get back in here. I'm popping some popcorn and we can watch the disintegration of Canada. The Mongol hordes should be showing up at 11, the Goths sometime tomorrow, the Visigoths are always fashionably late, so I'm not sure.

If they can skate my fellow Canuckle heads are in trouble. Otherwise its time to break out the nuclear hockey pucks.

 

[SpectreT]

To Penalt:

Go Leafs Go!

Living in Upstate New York, many of us Hockey Fans have adopted Toronto as our team.

At any rate, I got a PM from BS thanking me for not foaming at the mouth in this thread. Funny, I thought my first post here explained where I stand, but I guess it missed the target. I'll repost it here:

Nothing there applies to me, unfortunately.

IMO, the Government's job is to shut the fuck up, sit the fuck down, stay the fuck out of my business, and go play with themselves, unless some roads need to be fixed, or some assclown goes on an unjustified murdering spree.

I'm a Switch, FWIW, and that's my write-in ballot.

Personally, I'm in favor of absolute direct democracy. Republics never work for more than a few centuries before they go pear-shaped. I'll cite Rome as my prime example, but there have been others throughout history and on nearly every continent. Antarctica being the notable abstention.

As to BS's consistent regurgitation of mythology-based excrement of the masculine bovine regarding homosexuality, and such being a leading indicator of the fall of Rome, I think the lead in the water system, spreading their borders too thin and failure to adequately protect their lands and borders was their ultimate downfall; along with Gallic and Germanic tribes just out-stubborning the war machine of the most powerful professional army in the world at that time. And the Roman republic fell to the Roman Empire, in a military coup. The empire lasted a hell of a lot longer than the Republic.

The Greeks of antiquity can't be considered a single whole country. Troy and Athens, especially, couldn't stand each other, and shed a lot of blood over it. The Macedonians were tangling with the Turks, and finally got a few other city-states over to their side. but after Alexander, things went to hell in a handcart, there.

Again, my personal view is for absolute personal authority, and absolute personal responsibility; behave stupidly, pay the price. For example, if you have unprotected sex with twenty or thirty people, don't be surprised if you catch a little something. It's every individual's responsibility to protect themselves however they can. And statistics can be twisted to represent whatever viewpoint the person using them wishes. Reality is, the population that got bit most publicly by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus is the population that has taken the most steps to protect itself, reporting fewer cases than almost any other segment in America today.

Virgins are about the only ones who rank lower.

That said, I think anyone who thinks they might be at risk for any STD and doesn't get tested for them is morally on about the same level as an idiot opening up with an assault rifle in the middle of a busy downtown street. How many people have caught something nasty from someone who didn't know they were carrying something nasty?

All that is peripheral to a basic fact.

In this society, homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. Unless and until they are allowed to form lifetime monogamous unions recognised by the state with all the same legal and financial benefits as a heterosexual marriage, there is an enormous social injustice going on. I'm not talking about a 750-man clusterfuck on the steps of Capitol hill (though the mental image is quite humorous, as well as symbolic of the current state of the Republic), I'm talking about two people who love each other enough to devote their lives to one another. They don't get the same tax benefits as a married couple, in many places, they don't even get to visit their loved one in a hospital ICU, because they're not immediate family, as they would be if they were recognized as a spouse. Many insurance plans finally get it, and recognize such partnerships, but that's as far as it's gone. I don't see that as threatening marriage in any way, shape or form. I see the issue as the Republican Party pandering to the "God Hates Fags" wing of their religious constituency.

There has, as yet, been no argument brought forth that has any factual merit against homosexual marriage, that I have seen. I've shared my views on disease, which is a separate issue; on responsibility, which is a separate issue; on historical societies' downfalls, which is a completely separate issue: and very briefly touched on monogamy, which is central to the issue. Any monagamous relationship involving two humans deserves exactly the same amount of respect and legal bennies as any other monogamous relationship between two humans, I don't give a corpulent rodent's posterior how many "y" chromosomes there are to be found in it, from zero to two sets.

Consider my shit officially stirred on this topic, and it's the last word I have to say on the issue

 

[Shankara20]

and it's the last word I have to say on the issue

and well stated it is.





(about that "750-man clusterfuck on the steps of Capitol hill", errrrr..., oh never mind - dreams seldom come true *sigh*)

 

[BogartSlap]

simple

In this society, homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals...Unless and until they are allowed to form lifetime monogamous unions recognised by the state with all the same legal and financial benefits as a heterosexual marriage, there is an enormous social injustice going on...There has, as yet, been no argument brought forth that has any factual merit against homosexual marriage, that I have seen.

In order: Yes, they do...no, there isn't...how about the very simple one that homosexual relationships just don't meet the definition of "marriage"? A softball team can yell and scream all it wants that it wants the right to be recognized as a "corporation", but the fact is that it doesn't qualify for that particular legal status.

 

[Shankara20]

In order: Yes, they do...no, there isn't...how about the very simple one that homosexual relationships just don't meet the definition of "marriage"? A softball team can yell and scream all it wants that it wants the right to be recognized as a "corporation", but the fact is that it doesn't qualify for that particular legal status.

so let's pass a law to change the legal definition of "marriage" - no problem

 

[BogartSlap]

have at it

so let's pass a law to change the legal definition of "marriage" - no problem

Feel free to advocate for such a legal change - that's what's great about America, you're free to try to advance whatever cause you take an interest in. But in the meantime, try to dial back the moaning and hysteria about being denied equal rights, not having a seat at the table, etc. You have the same legal rights as myself or anyone else - we are all equally free to form a union, and ask that that union be recognized as a marriage, IF it meets the current legal definition of marriage; we are all, also, equally free to campaign for a change in the legal definition.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

so let's pass a law to change the legal definition of "marriage" - no problem

Absolutely.

Why should us str8's have all the fun and joy of Divorce Court? Spread the wealth I say!

 

[Shankara20]

Feel free to advocate for such a legal change - that's what's great about America, you're free to try to advance whatever cause you take an interest in. But in the meantime, try to dial back the moaning and hysteria about being denied equal rights, not having a seat at the table, etc. You have the same legal rights as myself or anyone else - we are all equally free to form a union, and ask that that union be recognized as a marriage, IF it meets the current legal definition of marriage; we are all, also, equally free to campaign for a change in the legal definition.

I have been and will continue advocacy. I am well aware and grateful for the personal freedoms the Constitution of this country allow me.

Have my posts about this subject been moan-full and hysterical? It was not my intention. I would welcome you taking the time to point out such remarks in my posts in our discussions. I know I get a little flip at times but hopefully stay within the decorum of the thread - however at times I have mis-interrupted and posted inappropriate remakes. I am open to feedback as I wish to be respectful and courteous - most of the time.

Shank

 

[BogartSlap]

Shankara

Have my posts about this subject been moan-full and hysterical? It was not my intention. I would welcome you taking the time to point out such remarks in my posts in our discussions. I know I get a little flip at times but hopefully stay within the decorum of the thread - however at times I have mis-interrupted and posted inappropriate remakes. I am open to feedback as I wish to be respectful and courteous - most of the time.
Shank

Not at all - that wasn't directed personally at you - sorry if it came across that way. In fact, you're probably among the likely unanimous selections for "Most Well-Behaved Thread Participant" (while I'm probably still in the running for "Most Obnoxious Bastard You Could Have the Misfortune to Encounter Online").

 

[Shankara20]

Not at all - that wasn't directed personally at you - sorry if it came across that way. In fact, you're probably among the likely unanimous selections for "Most Well-Behaved Thread Participant" (while I'm probably still in the running for "Most Obnoxious Bastard You Could Have the Misfortune to Encounter Online").

I got spanked about 6 months ago for excessive hijacking - the spanking was not well delivered so I changed my ways, somewhat....

 

[Netzach]

'Cause there'd be no bitching and moaning if these people traveled to Wisconsin and suddenly found their marriage in another state was grounds for being arrested. None. And if, in florida, they adopt and raise kids and suddenly bio grandparent shows up to reclaim them from school one day and they had no recourse.

Equal protection indeed. Horse shit, to quote.

 

[BogartSlap]

clarification

'Cause there'd be no bitching and moaning if these people traveled to Wisconsin and suddenly found their marriage in another state was grounds for being arrested. None. And if, in florida, they adopt and raise kids and suddenly bio grandparent shows up to reclaim them from school one day and they had no recourse.
Equal protection indeed. Horse shit, to quote.

Apparently you simply don't understand the concept of "equal protection". Equal protection simply means that the "rules" apply the same to everyone across the board. It does NOT mean that you're being treated unfairly unless you get to do whatever the hell you want to. The current rule, in this case, is that you can only form a marriage with someone of the opposite sex. That rule applies to you, myself, and everyone else in the country EQUALLY. If you don't like the rule, you're free to work to change it.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

I got spanked about 6 months ago for excessive hijacking - the spanking was not well delivered so I changed my ways, somewhat....

[/hijack mode ON] *SWAT*

Behave Shank! [/hijack mode OFF]

 

[rosco rathbone]

I'm a dom and I'm more politically complex than allowed for by the poll.

 

[Kajira Callista]

I'm a dom and I'm more politically complex than allowed for by the poll.

Hi Uncle Rosco

 

[Blushing Bottom]

touche...

I'm a dom and I'm more politically complex than allowed for by the poll.

 

[BeachGurl2]

....you have a very narrow and misinformed view of the world and life in general IMHO.

Catalina

I concur, Cat. What a load of . . . well, you get my meaning. It's always interesting to me when people start spouting off about how one thing is discrimination but something else is and then uses ridiculous arguments to back themselves up.

BogartSlap, are you really stupid or just being purposely obtuse for the sake of playing devil's advocate? Because your arguments just don't hold water across the board. You'll make a statement that starts sounding like you actually understand the definition of the terms you're using, and then you go and screw it up by trying to think again. Case in point: Did you actually read what Netz wrote in her last post about crossing state lines? Your position on equal protection just doesn't fly. In one state she does have protection but in another she is breaking a law. How is that equal? And we're not talking about speeding here, we're talking about what you consider to be the foundational element of the family. Think about it for just a minute. Or not.

Bottom line is this: the government has no business whatsoever dictating the sexual practices of consenting adults. The key words there are CONSENTING ADULTS, in case you missed that part. What does that mean? It should mean that if the government allows protection for one set of people - heterosexual male and female - then they should allow equal protection to any other set regardless of sexual orientation or gender. Marriage is legal between 2 people - as far as the government is concerned, that should be any 2 people of legal age. It's not the government's business what gender or orientation those 2 people are. Marriage is not a religious establishment, in our country it is a legal establishment. It gives to 2 people specific rights that others do not have. (And just for the sake of anecdotal argument here, my great aunt and her partner have been together for over 55 years. I have friends who have been in monogamous relationships for 20+ years. Most of my heterosexual friends are divorced and many of them are working on marriage 2+. So don't start spouting off about how secure heterosexual marriage is and tell me how kids are better off within those boundaries.)

You spoke earlier about economic enhancements of allowing homosexual marriages. You talked about defining a family. And M Wisdom had some great examples of that for you. You even talked about the spread of AIDS. Bullshit. A homosexual couple together does not cause injury to anyone or anything. You can spout your statistics all you want. People who are educated beyond high school - and even some who aren't - know that ALL statistics can be made to say whatever the author wants them to say. Even the studies are skewed so that the results obtained are those they intended to get in the first place. What you've done here is spew a lot of venom and hatred camoflauged in 'educated theories'. Since it's a language you understand, again I say BULLSHIT! You're full of self importance and hot air. You are exactly the kind of person who keeps the prejudice going because you pretend to have all these answers, all the reasons we shouldn't let this happen.

I was in education for many years - I know all about the studies done on children from homes that do not contain the traditional nuclear family. The studies also show that children from mentally healthy, functional non-traditional families become better adjusted adults than those from dysfunctional traditional families. Those non-traditional families included many variations from single parent, homosexual parent, and even non-biological family units including friends. But the religious right doesn't want you to know that. They want you to believe that the only way a child will succeed in life is if he/she comes from a traditional, nuclear family.

The arguments you're spouting now against homosexual marriage are very similar to the arguments presented at the end of slavery, when blacks were given the vote, and again when women were given the vote. Scare the public into thinking that allowing this will corrupt our youth. Will end our society as we know it. Homosexuality didn't lead to the fall of Rome. Do you even read what you write? The same kind of thinking that you have today is what lead to the fall of Rome. The thinking that the current way is the best way. Because anything other than that scares you and you don't know how to deal with it.

Okay, off my soapbox. I'm going to skip on over to a cheerier thread.

 

[BogartSlap]

not necessarily so

[QUOTE=BeachGurl2}
Bottom line is this: the government has no business whatsoever dictating the sexual practices of consenting adults."

You're entitled to that opinion, of course. But that doesn't make it so.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Of course, you're absolutely right. My opinion doesn't make it so - but that doesn't mean my opinion is incorrect. In fact, if you read the actual constitution and study the history surrounding it - beyond American History 101 at Podunk U- you'll find that my statement above is probably something one of the early politicians might have said if they were here today. But then again, I'm guessing that you're probably in your 20s. So you'll continue to think you're right for awhile yet. Then you'll realize, just like the rest of us did at some point, that there is a lot more to arguing politics than whether or not something is part of party propaganda or Politics 101. Everyone loves the law - until it steps on their toes. As long as you continue to practice straight sex, with girls, and don't get caught doing anything else, then you'll be okay.


Edited to add: my assumptions about your age are both based on a few statements you've made about specific eras and the tenor of your argument. I'm often incorrect in those kinds of assumptions, so no worries if I'm wrong.

 

[Shankara20]

As long as you continue to practice straight sex, with girls, and don't get caught doing anything else, then you'll be okay.

straight missionary sex that is - sodomy (as in a straight m/f married couple blowjob ) is still against the law in some places in the good ol' the U.S. of A.)

 

[BogartSlap]

er, no, it's not

"

Marriage is legal between 2 people"

Uh, no...it's legal between two people of the opposite sex.

"It's not the government's business what gender or orientation those 2 people are. Marriage is not a religious establishment, in our country it is a legal establishment."

Wow - that's about the quickest self-contradiction I've ever seen. First, you say it's not the government's business...then one sentence later turn round and say it's a legal issue. Uh, who, pray tell, makes laws other than government???
Marriage is not a religious establishment?? Oh really? Please do enlighten us with any NON-religious origin of the institution of marriage that you know about. (THIS one I really want to hear!)

"It gives to 2 people specific rights that others do not have."

Again, you're less than completely honest - it doesn't give just ANY two people those rights. It gives them to a HUSBAND and WIFE - a male/female union that meets the definition of marriage.

"You can spout your statistics all you want."

Apparently the clear statistical evidence as to what is the overwhelmingly leading means of transmission for the AIDS virus doesn't support your current, cherished delusion.
By the way, you say statistics can be used to prove anything? - Fine, let's see a demonstration: please use statistics to show that something in the U.S. OTHER than male/male sex has been responsible for the highest number of transmissions of the AIDS virus.

"They want you to believe that the only way a child will succeed in life is if he/she comes from a traditional, nuclear family."

You guys are really terrific at setting up these ridiculous straw-man arguments. I've never heard ANYbody in entire my life assert that's the ONLY way a child will succeed.

"Homosexuality didn't lead to the fall of Rome."

Well, didn't help.

"The same kind of thinking that you have today is what lead to the fall of Rome. The thinking that the current way is the best way. Because anything other than that scares you and you don't know how to deal with it."

Wow - so much crap packed into so few sentences - very impressive.
(1) Regardless of whether homosexuality did or didn't, belief in maintaining traditional social structures sure as hell didn't have a damn thing to do with the fall of Rome - you're just spouting nonsense. (Is that foam around the corners of your mouth?)
(2) Actually, I just don't scare that easy.
(3) I've never in my life argued for ANYthing based solely on it being "the current way".